The Court was confronted with a complex situation in which the DNA test report was in conflict with the presumption of conclusive proof of legitimacy of the child under Section 112 of the Evidence Act. It was held that “when there is a conflict between a conclusive proof envisaged under law and a proof based on scientific advancement accepted by the world community to be correct, the latter must prevail over the former.” Consequently, it was held that inasmuch as the appellant’s plea that he had no access to his wife when the child was begotten stood proved by the DNA test report, the appellant could not be compelled “to bear the fatherhood of a child, when the scientific reports prove to the contrary.”

Updation of TaxHeal on daily basis takes lot of time and effort .Donations help me to continue support and development of this free website.If you like TaxHeal and you gained something, isn’t that worth a coffee or two? Please consider donating via PayPal